Re: covert level attack (sab) differential cap
Posted: Tue Sep 25, 2012 1:41 pm
Now *that* would be complicated.
(And it would not achieve the set target for this update.)
(And it would not achieve the set target for this update.)
These are the forums for the GateWa.rs family of text-based space-centred PBBGs
https://talk.gatewa.rs/
Fair points, yes. However. The point of this update is to make 1 sabotage action less effective between various level differences. Not to make a 'massive' number of sabs less effective.BMMJ13 wrote:I think having limited number of sabs compared to limited power makes it much less complicated to the player. Yes the coding might be a bit more complicated, however I don't see it being overly so.
How is it not achieving the target, or am I mistaken that it is supposed to make covert levels not as effective when the levels are far enough apart, thereby limiting both the usefulness of higher/unlimited covert levels as well as hopefully limiting those bullying those with small levels as well.
Juliette wrote:Fair points, yes. However. The point of this update is to make 1 sabotage action less effective between various level differences. Not to make a 'massive' number of sabs less effective.BMMJ13 wrote:I think having limited number of sabs compared to limited power makes it much less complicated to the player. Yes the coding might be a bit more complicated, however I don't see it being overly so.
How is it not achieving the target, or am I mistaken that it is supposed to make covert levels not as effective when the levels are far enough apart, thereby limiting both the usefulness of higher/unlimited covert levels as well as hopefully limiting those bullying those with small levels as well.
BMMJ13 wrote:Juliette wrote:Fair points, yes. However. The point of this update is to make 1 sabotage action less effective between various level differences. Not to make a 'massive' number of sabs less effective.BMMJ13 wrote:I think having limited number of sabs compared to limited power makes it much less complicated to the player. Yes the coding might be a bit more complicated, however I don't see it being overly so.
How is it not achieving the target, or am I mistaken that it is supposed to make covert levels not as effective when the levels are far enough apart, thereby limiting both the usefulness of higher/unlimited covert levels as well as hopefully limiting those bullying those with small levels as well.
Same idea then, change the number of weapons sabbed instead of number of actions allowed.
Say 41 wants to sab a 37, they are fine. They want to sab a 36, and they can only kill 4/(41-36) or 4/5 or 80% as many weapons per sab as someone within range. Same could be applied down the line. 41 wants to sab a 31, they can kill 4/(41-31) or 4/10 or 40% as many weapons as someone within range.
That way it's based on damage done being changed rather than the spies needed to be sent, which isn't apparent.
Huh, more expensive = more ineffective..sarparto wrote:I like this. If the point of this update is to make 1 sabatoge action less effective between various level differences, this achieves it. The way it's stated now only makes it more expensive, not less effective.BMMJ13 wrote:Juliette wrote:Fair points, yes. However. The point of this update is to make 1 sabotage action less effective between various level differences. Not to make a 'massive' number of sabs less effective.BMMJ13 wrote:I think having limited number of sabs compared to limited power makes it much less complicated to the player. Yes the coding might be a bit more complicated, however I don't see it being overly so.
How is it not achieving the target, or am I mistaken that it is supposed to make covert levels not as effective when the levels are far enough apart, thereby limiting both the usefulness of higher/unlimited covert levels as well as hopefully limiting those bullying those with small levels as well.
Same idea then, change the number of weapons sabbed instead of number of actions allowed.
Say 41 wants to sab a 37, they are fine. They want to sab a 36, and they can only kill 4/(41-36) or 4/5 or 80% as many weapons per sab as someone within range. Same could be applied down the line. 41 wants to sab a 31, they can kill 4/(41-31) or 4/10 or 40% as many weapons as someone within range.
That way it's based on damage done being changed rather than the spies needed to be sent, which isn't apparent.
If this is still the idea, then the suggested reduction in damage was not what AdminJ was after.This change was put in place to stop 100% reliance on covert levels/actions, making number of agents/spies at least partially relevent.
Juliette wrote:Huh, more expensive = more ineffective..sarparto wrote:I like this. If the point of this update is to make 1 sabatoge action less effective between various level differences, this achieves it. The way it's stated now only makes it more expensive, not less effective.BMMJ13 wrote:Juliette wrote:Fair points, yes. However. The point of this update is to make 1 sabotage action less effective between various level differences. Not to make a 'massive' number of sabs less effective.BMMJ13 wrote:I think having limited number of sabs compared to limited power makes it much less complicated to the player. Yes the coding might be a bit more complicated, however I don't see it being overly so.
How is it not achieving the target, or am I mistaken that it is supposed to make covert levels not as effective when the levels are far enough apart, thereby limiting both the usefulness of higher/unlimited covert levels as well as hopefully limiting those bullying those with small levels as well.
Same idea then, change the number of weapons sabbed instead of number of actions allowed.
Say 41 wants to sab a 37, they are fine. They want to sab a 36, and they can only kill 4/(41-36) or 4/5 or 80% as many weapons per sab as someone within range. Same could be applied down the line. 41 wants to sab a 31, they can kill 4/(41-31) or 4/10 or 40% as many weapons as someone within range.
That way it's based on damage done being changed rather than the spies needed to be sent, which isn't apparent.
Calculations -which this comes down to- are not a reason to change the way this is intended..
Or am I mistaken?
Juliette wrote:So - unless I am reading you completely wrong - your basic complaint is the fact that the formula is complicated? The formula does not get more complicated if you change it from the usual 'covert power' to 'power per spy*covert level (whatever the proper formula is, you know it BM)'.
Just use the full formula and floor it at the level cap compared to the levels.
Or am I wrong?
How is it more complicated to do correctly? You just need a proper spy report:BMMJ13 wrote:It's because it changes what your covert is depending on what someone else is, making it more complicated/difficult to do correctly. Instead of being able to use multiple different sab calculations, you can only use the one and have to add extra parts to it to make it not fail.
This confuses me.. if you can explain, that would be great, but no rush.BMMJ13 wrote:Yes all it does is make it more complicated or difficult to figure out (which will likely result in many failed sabs), but I do not see how that is not a valid reason against it.
Juliette wrote:Sabs were never meant to be 100% effective.. this is my point regarding the calculation being more complicated and such. If you can find a 100% solution regarding sabs, that kind of messes up the possibility of sabs going wrong.. which is a vital part of sabotage.How is it more complicated to do correctly? You just need a proper spy report:BMMJ13 wrote:It's because it changes what your covert is depending on what someone else is, making it more complicated/difficult to do correctly. Instead of being able to use multiple different sab calculations, you can only use the one and have to add extra parts to it to make it not fail.
- current (opponent) Covert
- current (attacker) Covert
- current (opponent/attacker) Spies (or be clever and take Cov power and spies => level + planets)
- current (..) planets
- .. (find out!)This confuses me.. if you can explain, that would be great, but no rush.BMMJ13 wrote:Yes all it does is make it more complicated or difficult to figure out (which will likely result in many failed sabs), but I do not see how that is not a valid reason against it.
CCexyDCapedCrusader wrote:hmm i still think you not being able to sab 3 levels lower would make it fairer for smaller people than all this coding is confusing as 41 can still sab level 30s which still sucks even if its only converted to level 34 you are still going to be overmatched